It's standard for debt whiners - they complain about the absolute value without actually putting it relative to anything (numbers alone are meaningless unless they're anchored to something. % of GDP is a good one. $ per capita is a good one. Absolute value is not a good one.) And none of them can ever explain why the debt will hurt us. In general, they complain about things like China owning us (without understanding how much China owns and why it isn't really a pressing concern.)

No one will say our debt is good. No one will say we shouldn't make broad moves to stem it from growing. But it isn't our most pressing concern. That debt has next to no impact on our domestic economy. That debt doesn't contribute to our country being a crappier place to live. Let's focus on things that do.

I think military spending should be higher than hand outs. Is that a good enough example for you?

But why? Rather than having a list of who gets more and who gets less, how about we determine what each area actually needs in terms of resources and capital then pay them accordingly. If their needs to be a heirarchy of importance of what gets cut first if the money runs out before everyone is paid, then so be it. But it seems laughably simplistic to flatly say "Whatever public welfare gets in federal money defense needs to exceed it!"

I hate deadbeats who do nothing but get fat on the public dole as much as you but, despite your constant derision of "hand-outs", the fact of the matter is that most good people will need some kind of help some time in their life. How can we be called a "civilized nation" if we don't see that they get the help they need to get back on their feet?

I don't get upset about said deadbeats like you do (as evidenced by the constant harping on it) because it is a relatively small number of Americans who do so.

From Statistical Information and Demographics derived from the latest national census:

If you use those who are supported by Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF)--best described as a federal largess to indigent families with dependent children--as stated by the Dept. of Health the data suggests 1.7% of the total population that derive over 50% of their income from Welfare supports.

The number stated that receive any portion of their support from from welfare assistance--including food stamps--it is 29,900,000 or roughly 8% of the total population in the United States.

This breaks down to:

39% white 11,661,000 of 29,900,000 recipients

38% black 11,362,000 of 29,900,000

17% Hispanic 5,083,000 of 29,900,000

That's only 8% of Americans according the the data. And many of those people work but have jobs that pay too little to support themselves - hardly deadbeats.

That leaves the stated 1.7% of Americans who basically live off of Federal Welfare. That's less than 2% for heaven's sake. It's too many to be sure, but in the big scheme of things, with all the problems we have in the US, is it worth the amount of ranting and screaming people do when it is less than 2% of Americans doing it? That conceivably means 98% of Americans are NOT doing it and are trying to eek out an honest living. It's really a matte rof perspective for me. My annoyance about an issue is commensurate with the size of the issue as much as anything else, and for me it's just not worth getting all bent out of shape over.

Not to mention that many of those that get assistance but don't have jobs, either can't find one since hiring has been way down, or have mental health issues that make them unable to hold down a job. Many of these folks are military vets too. A big chunk of the homeless population are vets for this very reason. It's also something that a better health care system could help to remedy.

There are always going to be some that just live off of the government. To think that it's a comfortable living and that people will just start choosing to do so is just not accurate. To deny the assistance to the vast majority that need it for good reason, just to prevent a few hangers-on from getting a handout is both cruel and extremely unhelpful for our economy.

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell (I think...)

Prez wrote on Oct 16, 2013, 11:25:I feel that way; always have. But that is not to say that those people shouldn't be given a helping hand when they hit a rough patch as good, hard-working people often do.

Good hard working people never get sick though and always have coverage and insurance that never drops them at the first sign of trouble, the more you know

Thundr, not going to respond to the personal attacks, you had your chance to argue against the ACA and failed.

RollinThundr wrote on Oct 16, 2013, 10:51:No it does, as everything is interconnected when it comes to economy. Where are you going to get all this tax money?

Tax revenue is a different issue, the allocation of it is whats important. The fact that you want a blank check for defense spending but want to miserly watch so called entitlements which are peanuts by comparison tells me that you care more about personal politics in this regard than the nation actually functioning.

So what your saying here is continue to kick the can down the road and worry about it later when it's too late.

I said no such thing, as usual you just continually try to shift the goal posts in every political discussion, trying to move everything back to meaningless sayings and generalisms like derp derp bootstraps make something of yourself derp. If we could get a budget then maybe we could start working down that national debt. In the meantime everything doesn't come to a halt just because we have debt, holding the country hostage over a single issue is asinine.

I say that because neither party and only a few libertarians want to even address spending at all. If we keep just ignoring it, it's eventually going to be too late.

Sure you can label me a tin foil hatter or whatever but I am right, the US WILL NOT last how we're spending. The math supports that.

Prez wrote on Oct 16, 2013, 10:41:That leaves the stated 1.7% of Americans who basically live off of Federal Welfare. That's less than 2% for heaven's sake. It's too many to be sure, but in the big scheme of things, with all the problems we have in the US, is it worth the amount of ranting and screaming people do when it is less than 2% of Americans doing it? That conceivably means 98% of Americans are NOT doing it and are trying to eek out an honest living. It's really a matte rof perspective for me. My annoyance about an issue is commensurate with the size of the issue as much as anything else, and for me it's just not worth getting all bent out of shape over.

Man putting the figure there in black and white really puts his rantings into perspective. All of that wasted time and energy over a non-issue by comparison to the serious things people are trying to discuss. Less than 2%, unbelievable.

RollinThundr wrote on Oct 16, 2013, 10:51:No it does, as everything is interconnected when it comes to economy. Where are you going to get all this tax money?

Tax revenue is a different issue, the allocation of it is whats important. The fact that you want a blank check for defense spending but want to miserly watch so called entitlements which are peanuts by comparison tells me that you care more about personal politics in this regard than the nation actually functioning.

So what your saying here is continue to kick the can down the road and worry about it later when it's too late.

I said no such thing, as usual you just continually try to shift the goal posts in every political discussion, trying to move everything back to meaningless sayings and generalisms like derp derp bootstraps make something of yourself derp. If we could get a budget then maybe we could start working down that national debt. In the meantime everything doesn't come to a halt just because we have debt, holding the country hostage over a single issue is asinine.

I think military spending should be higher than hand outs. Is that a good enough example for you?

But why? Rather than having a list of who gets more and who gets less, how about we determine what each area actually needs in terms of resources and capital then pay them accordingly. If their needs to be a heirarchy of importance of what gets cut first if the money runs out before everyone is paid, then so be it. But it seems laughably simplistic to flatly say "Whatever public welfare gets in federal money defense needs to exceed it!"

I hate deadbeats who do nothing but get fat on the public dole as much as you but, despite your constant derision of "hand-outs", the fact of the matter is that most good people will need some kind of help some time in their life. How can we be called a "civilized nation" if we don't see that they get the help they need to get back on their feet?

I don't get upset about said deadbeats like you do (as evidenced by the constant harping on it) because it is a relatively small number of Americans who do so.

From Statistical Information and Demographics derived from the latest national census:

If you use those who are supported by Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF)--best described as a federal largess to indigent families with dependent children--as stated by the Dept. of Health the data suggests 1.7% of the total population that derive over 50% of their income from Welfare supports.

The number stated that receive any portion of their support from from welfare assistance--including food stamps--it is 29,900,000 or roughly 8% of the total population in the United States.

This breaks down to:

39% white 11,661,000 of 29,900,000 recipients

38% black 11,362,000 of 29,900,000

17% Hispanic 5,083,000 of 29,900,000

That's only 8% of Americans according the the data. And many of those people work but have jobs that pay too little to support themselves - hardly deadbeats.

That leaves the stated 1.7% of Americans who basically live off of Federal Welfare. That's less than 2% for heaven's sake. It's too many to be sure, but in the big scheme of things, with all the problems we have in the US, is it worth the amount of ranting and screaming people do when it is less than 2% of Americans doing it? That conceivably means 98% of Americans are NOT doing it and are trying to eek out an honest living. It's really a matte rof perspective for me. My annoyance about an issue is commensurate with the size of the issue as much as anything else, and for me it's just not worth getting all bent out of shape over.

I would be fine with finding a middle ground. The why for me is I put our service men and woman being properly equipped far higher on the list than the leeches who sponge off the system. But then again I still hold the belief that anyone can make something of themselves if they really want to. I get the feeling alot of others don't feel that way.

Verno wrote on Oct 16, 2013, 09:05:That vague, meaningless rant feels ripped from a talk show and doesn't really have anything to do with the ACA or health care in general. Spending tax money on health care is something I can get behind, a healthy working populace helps lead us to a better economy. The money is being spent regardless and I would rather we have more control over it and the process itself.

No it does, as everything is interconnected when it comes to economy. Where are you going to get all this tax money? What are you going to tax everyone more? When do we get to the point where it's too much? We already know if the 1% were taxed 100% it would do zero to our debt with how much we spend. So what your saying here is continue to kick the can down the road and worry about it later when it's too late.

What control are you going to have that's any different pre obamacare?

I think military spending should be higher than hand outs. Is that a good enough example for you?

But why? Rather than having a list of who gets more and who gets less, how about we determine what each area actually needs in terms of resources and capital then pay them accordingly. If their needs to be a heirarchy of importance of what gets cut first if the money runs out before everyone is paid, then so be it. But it seems laughably simplistic to flatly say "Whatever public welfare gets in federal money defense needs to exceed it!"

I hate deadbeats who do nothing but get fat on the public dole as much as you but, despite your constant derision of "hand-outs", the fact of the matter is that most good people will need some kind of help some time in their life. How can we be called a "civilized nation" if we don't see that they get the help they need to get back on their feet?

I don't get upset about said deadbeats like you do (as evidenced by the constant harping on it) because it is a relatively small number of Americans who do so.

From Statistical Information and Demographics derived from the latest national census:

If you use those who are supported by Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF)--best described as a federal largess to indigent families with dependent children--as stated by the Dept. of Health the data suggests 1.7% of the total population that derive over 50% of their income from Welfare supports.

The number stated that receive any portion of their support from from welfare assistance--including food stamps--it is 29,900,000 or roughly 8% of the total population in the United States.

This breaks down to:

39% white 11,661,000 of 29,900,000 recipients

38% black 11,362,000 of 29,900,000

17% Hispanic 5,083,000 of 29,900,000

That's only 8% of Americans according the the data. And many of those people work but have jobs that pay too little to support themselves - hardly deadbeats.

That leaves the stated 1.7% of Americans who basically live off of Federal Welfare. That's less than 2% for heaven's sake. It's too many to be sure, but in the big scheme of things, with all the problems we have in the US, is it worth the amount of ranting and screaming people do when it is less than 2% of Americans doing it? That conceivably means 98% of Americans are NOT doing it and are trying to eek out an honest living. It's really a matte rof perspective for me. My annoyance about an issue is commensurate with the size of the issue as much as anything else, and for me it's just not worth getting all bent out of shape over.

This comment was edited on Oct 16, 2013, 10:50.

“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.” - Mahatma Gandhi

That vague, meaningless rant feels ripped from a talk show and doesn't really have anything to do with the ACA or health care in general. Spending tax money on health care is something I can get behind, a healthy working populace helps lead us to a better economy. The money is being spent regardless and I would rather we have more control over it and the process itself.

RollinThundr wrote on Oct 16, 2013, 01:39:More adhom thanks asshat, love you too buddy. Personally I think military spending should be higher than hand outs. Is that a good enough example for you?

It's not an adhom to point out that you can't wrap your head around such a tiny concept. That's a failing of yours, not mine or anyone elses. You're not a fiscal conservative, you're a pretender, you just admitted you want to continue the reckless defense spending and war mongering that has helped plunge us into this massive debt. Now I'm starting to wonder how many social assistance programs you're on.

The only thing I'm wrapping my head around is we can't keep going the way we are with spending, regardless of what it's on. I've been saying this now here for 2 years, and zero of you get it except for MadMax and Axis it appears.

Rome didn't fall in a day, we won't either but we're certainly getting close because selfish people, which is the majority are more worried about entitlements rather than us not going bankrupt, not defaulting again to make our paper monopoly money even more worthless and starting to seriously look at cutting some 17 trillion of debt.

Gays having the right to marry for example doesn't mean squat when shit eventually hits the fan economically past the point of no return. We're going to get there. Sticking your fingers in your ears and ranting about how much more important government healthcare and the like is doesn't make it so.

That's the problem with most people, be they liberal or conservative or whatever. Selfishness. We won't have a country in 10 years we keep going this way.

RollinThundr wrote on Oct 16, 2013, 01:39:More adhom thanks asshat, love you too buddy. Personally I think military spending should be higher than hand outs. Is that a good enough example for you?

It's not an adhom to point out that you can't wrap your head around such a tiny concept. That's a failing of yours, not mine or anyone elses. You're not a fiscal conservative, you're a pretender, you just admitted you want to continue the reckless defense spending and war mongering that has helped plunge us into this massive debt. Now I'm starting to wonder how many social assistance programs you're on.

RollinThundr wrote on Oct 15, 2013, 20:00:You also seriously can't say "Hey I'm a fiscal conservative!" while in the same breath advocating bigger government and more government spending. Does not compute.

Yes actually you can. You can be a fiscal conservative and believe that some areas of government need to be larger while others need to be smaller because not all things are created equal. Sorry your brain can't process such a simple concept.

Who knows what Obama could have done if there wasn't gridlock. Who knows what any president could have done due to gridlock, yet another thing both parties have had to face usually with sad results. It's hard to judge what any president truly is when both sides won't work together.

The sad part is that this sort of political gridlock will be met with the same in return if we ever manage to finagle our way back into office, as doubtful as that is considering how toxic the republican brand is becoming.

More adhom thanks asshat, love you too buddy. Personally I think military spending should be higher than hand outs. Is that a good enough example for you?

It's funny that budget proposals can sit on Reid's desk, never get voted on the Senate floor, and it's still the republicans. Guy, they both do it. Neither this congress, nor the senate, nor this administration has made one effort to work together period.

The Dems have tried to enter conference on the budget with the House 21 times, and been rejected 21 times. That Boehner could call for a committee on the budget is just beyond belief. They've completely gone off the deep end.

Mad Max RW wrote on Oct 15, 2013, 16:51:So how many of you signed up for Obamacare?

I'm neither required, nor eligible to sign up through an exchange. So I didn't. What difference does it make?

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell (I think...)

RollinThundr wrote on Oct 15, 2013, 20:00:You also seriously can't say "Hey I'm a fiscal conservative!" while in the same breath advocating bigger government and more government spending. Does not compute.

Yes actually you can. You can be a fiscal conservative and believe that some areas of government need to be larger while others need to be smaller because not all things are created equal. Sorry your brain can't process such a simple concept.

Who knows what Obama could have done if there wasn't gridlock. Who knows what any president could have done due to gridlock, yet another thing both parties have had to face usually with sad results. It's hard to judge what any president truly is when both sides won't work together.

The sad part is that this sort of political gridlock will be met with the same in return if we ever manage to finagle our way back into office, as doubtful as that is considering how toxic the republican brand is becoming.

More adhom thanks asshat, love you too buddy. Personally I think military spending should be higher than hand outs. Is that a good enough example for you?

It's funny that budget proposals can sit on Reid's desk, never get voted on the Senate floor, and it's still the republicans. Guy, they both do it. Neither this congress, nor the senate, nor this administration has made one effort to work together period.